Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Exploring group decision making in a power-to-take experiment

  • Published:
Experimental Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Most studies that compare individual and group behavior neglect the in-group decision making process. This paper explores the decision making process within groups in a strategic setting: a two player power-to-take experiment. Discussions preceding group decisions are video taped and analyzed. We find the following: (1) no impact of the group setting as such on individual behavior; (2) heterogeneity of individual types; (3) perceptions of fairness are hardly discussed and are prone to the self-serving bias; (4) groups ignore the decision rule of other groups and typically view them as if they were single agents. (5) We also show that to explain group outcomes two factors have to be taken into account that are often neglected: the distribution of individual types over groups and the decision rules that groups use to arrive at their decision.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andreoni, J., Castillo, M., & Petrie, R. (2003). What do bargainers’ preferences look like? Experiments with a convex ultimatum game. American Economic Review, 93, 672–685

    Google Scholar 

  • Babcock, L., & Loewenstein, G. (1997). Explaining bargaining impasse. The role of self-serving bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 11, 109–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakeman, R. (2000). Behavioral observation and coding. In H.T. Reis and Ch. M. Judd (eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology, 138–159. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. UK.

  • Bolton, G. E., & Zwick, R. (1995). Anonymity versus punishment in ultimatum bargaining. Games and Economic Behavior, 10, 95–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bone, J., Hey, J., & Suckling, J. (1999). Are groups more (or Less) consistent than individuals?. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 8, 63–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornstein, G. (2003). Intergroup Conflict. Individual, Group, and Collective Interests. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 129–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornstein, G., & Yaniv, I. (1998). Individual and group behavior in the ultimatum game. Are groups more rational players? Experimental Economics, 1, 101–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Bornstein, G., Kugler, T., & Ziegelmeyer, A. (2004). Individual and group decisions in the centipede game: Are groups more rational players? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 599–605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornstein, G., Budescu, D. V., Kugler, T., & Selten, R. (2005). Repeated price competition between individuals and between teams. Working paper. The Hebrew University. Jerusalem.

  • Bosman, R., & van Winden, F. (2002). Emotional Hazard in a Power-to-Take Experiment. The Economic Journal, 112, 146–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bottom, W. P., Krishna, L., & Miller, G. J. (2002). Propagation of individual bias through group judgment. Error in the treatment of asymmetrically informative signals. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 25, 147–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brosig, J., Ockenfels, A., & Weimann, J. (2003). The effect of communication media on cooperation. German Economic Review 4, 217–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camerer, C.F. (2003). Behavioral game theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press

  • Cason, T. N., & Mui, V. -L. (1997). A laboratory study of group polarization in the team dictator game. Economic Journal, 107, 1465–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, D. J., & Kagel, J. H. (2005). Are two heads better than one? Team versus Individual Play in Signaling Games. The American Economic Review, 95, 477–509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corden, R. (2001). Group discussion and the importance of a shared perspective. Learning from collaborative research. Qualitative-Research, 1, 347–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, J. C., & Hayne, S. C. (2002). Barking up the wrong tree. Are small groups rational agents? Working Paper. University of Arizona

  • Dahl, G. B., & Ransom, M. R. (1999). Does where you stand depend on where you sit? Tithing donations and self-serving bias. American Economic Review, 89, 703–727

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J.H. (1973). Group decision and social interaction. Theory of social decision schemes. Psychological Review, 80, 97–125

    Google Scholar 

  • van Dijk, F., Sonnemans, J., & van Winden, F. (2001). Incentive systems in a real effort experiment. European Economic Review, 45, 187–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Endres, J., Poggenpohl, C., & Erben, C. (1999). Repetitions, warnings and video. Cognitive and motivational components in preschool children’s suggestibility. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 4, 129–146

    Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 817–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischbacher, U., Gächter, S., & Fehr, E. (2001). Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a Public Goods Experiment. Economics Letters, 71, 397–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

  • Goren, H., & Bornstein, G. (2000). The effects of intragroup communication on intergroup cooperation in the repeated intergroup prisoner’s dilemma (IPD) game. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 44(5), 700–719

    Google Scholar 

  • Guarnaschelli, S., McKelvey, R. D., & Palfrey, Th. R. (2000). An experimental study of jury decision rules. American Political Science Review, 94, 407–423

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennig-Schmidt, H. (1999). Bargaining in a video experiment. Determinants of boundedly rational behavior New York: Springer 1999

  • Hennig-Schmidt, H. (2002). The impact of fairness on decision making–An analysis of different video experiments. In F. Andersson, and H. Holm (eds.), Experimental Economics. Financial Markets. Auctions. and Decision Making. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 185–210

  • Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., & Smith, V. (1996). Social distance and other-regarding behavior. American Economic Review, 86, L653–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, N. L., Kramer, G. P., & MacCoun, R. J. (1996). Bias in Judgment. Comparing Individuals and Groups, Psychological Review, 103, 687–719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, N. L., Niedermeier, K. E., & Kaplan, M. F. (1999). Bias in Jurors vs. Bias in Juries. New Evidence from the SDS Perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 80, 70–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kocher, M. G., & Sutter, M. (2002). Individual versus group behavior and the role of the decision making process in gift-exchange experiments. Papers on Strategic Interaction. 27/2002. Max-Planck-Institute for Research into Economic Systems

  • Kocher, M. G., & Sutter, M. (2005). The ‘Decision Maker’ matters. Individual versus team behavior in experimental ‘Beauty-Contest’ games. Economic Journal, 115, 200–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laughlin, P. R. (1999). Collective induction. Twelve postulates. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 80, 50–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine, J. M. (1999). Transforming individuals into groups. Some hallmarks of the SDS approach to small group research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 80, 21–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loomes, G. (1999). Some lessons from past experiments and some challenges for the future. The Economic Journal, 109, F35–F45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Messick, D. M., Moore, D. A., & Bazerman, M.H. (1997). Ultimatum bargaining with a group. Underestimating the importance of the decision rule. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69, 87–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orbell, J. M., Dawes, R. M., & van der Kragt, A. J. C. (1988). Explaining discussion-induced cooperation. Journal of personality and social psychology 5, 811–819

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potter, J. (1996). Discourse analysis. Theoretical background. In J.T.E. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods for Psychology and the Social Sciences. Leicester: The British Psychological Society, 125–140

  • Raab, Ph., B. C. Schipper (2004). Cournot Competition between Teams. An experimental study. Bonn graduate school of economics. University of Bonn. Discussion Paper No. 13/2004.

  • Ratcliff, D. (2003). Video methods in qualitative research. In P. M. Camic J.E. Rhodes, and L. Yardley (eds.), Qualitative research in psychology. expanding perspectives in methodology and design. Washington. DC: American Psychological Association 113–129

  • Robert, C., & Carnevale, P. J. (1997). Group choice in ultimatum bargaining. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 72, 256–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rockenbach, B., Sadrieh, A., & Mathauschek B. (2005). Teams take the better risk. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization (forthcoming)

  • Rutström E. E. L., & Williams, M. B. (2000). Entitlements and fairness. An experimental study of distributive preferences. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 43, 75–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stasser, G. (1999). A primer of social decision scheme theory. Models of group influence, Competitive model testing, and prospective modeling. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 80, 3–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wildshut, T., Pinter, B., Vevea, J. L., Insko, Ch. A., & Schopler, J. (2003). Beyond the group mind. A quantitative review of the interindividual–Intergroup discontinuity effect. Psychological Bulletin. 129. 5, 698–722

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Monetary and Economic Policy Department, De Nederlandsche Bank, Postbus 98, 1000 AB, Amsterdam

    Ronald Bosman

  2. Department of Economics, Laboratorium für experimentelle Wirtschaftsforschung, Bonn University, Adenauerallee 24-42, D-53113, Bonn, Germany

    Heike Hennig-Schmidt

  3. CREED/Department of Economics, University of Amsterdam, Roetersstraat 11, 1018 WB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Frans van Winden

Authors
  1. Ronald Bosman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Heike Hennig-Schmidt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Frans van Winden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Heike Hennig-Schmidt.

Additional information

JEL Classification A12 · C72 · C91 · C92

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bosman, R., Hennig-Schmidt, H. & van Winden, F. Exploring group decision making in a power-to-take experiment. Exp Econ 9, 35–51 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-006-4310-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-006-4310-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation